Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of Nations
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Using the B7A2 Grace

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Using the B7A2 Grace Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/22/2012 11:57:41 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
In a historical 1941-1945 scenario, no it is not included because it was never made

the purpose was

a)
IJN was stupid to take photos of the USN carriers instead of using one
of their best designs to make torpedo runs

b) these wing loading arguments are not correct
wing loading only affects agility and it is not important except for a fighter
(and even then, you can get away with 200+ kg/m2 like P-47, P-51, FW-190 etc.)

3) in a scenario meant to optimize japanese designs it would be included, but not Scenario 1

4) Saiun is a better design than the Ryusei, as it could fit board all IJN carriers due to its small size





< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 2/22/2012 11:59:52 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 31
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 7:44:26 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

In a historical 1941-1945 scenario, no it is not included because it was never made

the purpose was

a)
IJN was stupid to take photos of the USN carriers instead of using one
of their best designs to make torpedo runs

b) these wing loading arguments are not correct
wing loading only affects agility and it is not important except for a fighter
(and even then, you can get away with 200+ kg/m2 like P-47, P-51, FW-190 etc.)

3) in a scenario meant to optimize japanese designs it would be included, but not Scenario 1

4) Saiun is a better design than the Ryusei, as it could fit board all IJN carriers due to its small size






a) it was problem to find and track american CVGs, problem a bit solved with C6N, what wrong with japs?
b) wing loading always correct cuz when you drag your rudder for change air speed in range 70-150 knots C6N on low alt need much more wing area from Fowler and strip flats. It mean he cannot maneur anymore and stay right near falling. More wing load and you cut your lowest speed. More lowest speed - more altittude for use torpedo without duds. More altitude - more chance to get kill from fighter attack rear below and more flaks can hit you. I even must say for Japanese TB attacking on alt more then 30-50 feet it 100% death. VT have only one problem - false activation from water surface. More alt - no water surface for proximity fuse. Gun angles have dead zone so not all guns can shoot something below flying deck , also when you stay in AA order you can scratch other ships if your angles of firing extremely low (read about friendly fired ships and casualties). But you spite on realistic fight and pray on only one- airspeed.
C6N-1B on attack course dont have 380MPH. C6N-1B even dont have 380mph cuz when C6N1-S got his 2x20mm cannons it cost for him 1 crew man. You think adding torpedo it simple process.
3) why we need C6N-1B? WITPAE have limitation for used carrier-based planes? and what real flight characteristics for C6N-1b?
4) C6N better design for fast and long-range recon. It all. Airspeed was result of low weight conception. You can transform SR-72 in TB it have enormous air speed and can left behind any fighter.

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 32
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 8:10:55 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

b) these wing loading arguments are not correct
wing loading only affects agility and it is not important except for a fighter
(and even then, you can get away with 200+ kg/m2 like P-47, P-51, FW-190 etc.)



Of 2 otherwise identical aircraft with only different wing areas(and thus wing loading), the one with heavier loading is always slower, climbs worse, stalls earlier, has slower rate of turn and wider radius of turn.

This is because to generate the same lift the higher wing loading machine needs either more speed or higher AoA.

If "agility" is the ability to change an aircraft's speed vector's direction and length in space, then "wing loading" here only helps a small part of it. Rate of roll(where a big, low wing load wing, might not help at all) and acceleration(power-to-weight and wing loading) are also part of it.

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 33
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 9:06:49 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Wikipedia is claiming: (B7A Grace) was intended for use aboard a new generation of Taihō-class carriers, the first of which was laid down in July 1941. Because the deck elevators on the Taihōs had a larger square area than those of older Japanese carriers, the longstanding maximum limit of 11 m (36 ft) on carrier aircraft length could now be lifted.

I think this is simply wrong? Older carriers had one elevator big enough to lift Grace. Plane's length was 11,49 meters, and wingspan 14,4 meters (but it had folding wingtips). For example Hiryu's largest elevator was 13,0 x 15,99 meters, Soryu's 11,49 x 15,99 meters etc.

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 34
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 2:49:03 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2906
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

b) these wing loading arguments are not correct
wing loading only affects agility and it is not important except for a fighter


I already invited you to read about SM.84 failure as a torpedo bomber.

That was also the same issue why the British pilots preferred the Swordfish over the new Albacore. The speed difference was not enough against the better agility of older aircraft.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 35
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 3:48:12 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

a) it was problem to find and track american CVGs, problem a bit solved with C6N, what wrong with japs?


No. Problem japan had was they could not SINK any CVs after 1942. Total number of capital ships sunk by japan 1943-1945 = zero

b)
quote:

More wing load and you cut your lowest speed.


Not sure what you mean by this. Planes with high wing loading have high speed (P-47 *425mph at 263 kg/m2 ). Planes with low wing loading have low speed (Polikarpov I-152 220 mph at 65kg/m2).


3)
quote:

why we need C6N-1B? WITPAE have limitation for used carrier-based planes? and what real flight characteristics for C6N-1b?


As stated. Not for a historical scenario one. Using the Saiun is about what should have been done Historically, not in the game.




4)
quote:

C6N better design for fast and long-range recon. It all. Airspeed was result of low weight conception. You can transform SR-72 in TB it have enormous air speed and can left behind any fighter.


A plane can easily be re-configured as flight characteristics are the sum of its parts. Saiun has a range of 14 at the start. Replace
with self-sealing tanks and you cut the range by 30%. That's still okay (range about 10). Some minor strengthening of the hull (as you suggest)
adds some weight, so reduce the fuel even further. Now you have range 8 with an armor rating of 1. Speed 379mph.

Remember ... many planes filled many roles .. Blenheim converted to a fighter, Mosquito for Recon + night fighter, even Ju 88 for a fighter.
Changing the Saiun into a torpedo plane would be a lot easier than turning it into a fighter (as they did historically),
and japan was desperate for a weapon system to be able to sink allied capital ships (B6N Tenzan was not good enough, look at the Marianas battle)




_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 36
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 4:04:20 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

b)
quote:

More wing load and you cut your lowest speed.


Not sure what you mean by this. Planes with high wing loading have high speed (P-47 *425mph at 263 kg/m2 ). Planes with low wing loading have low speed (Polikarpov I-152 220 mph at 65kg/m2).



Incorrect, there is a relationship between wing loading and top speed but other factors are at least as important, including but are not limited to things such as available power(or more accurately, thrust), profile of the fuselage and wings, airframe skin material etc.

There are many examples of planes where a lower wing loading one is faster than a high wing loading plane. Probably as or nearly as many as the other way around, if we are not limited to observing single or two seater military aircraft...

Can you give your sources so that we can read them too, and then possibly come to the same conclusions you've had?

< Message edited by Erkki -- 2/23/2012 4:05:51 PM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 37
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:06:36 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

the one with heavier loading is always slower, climbs worse, stalls earlier, has slower rate of turn and wider radius of turn.


Those who are inexperienced in this field will say these things. Completely incorrect.

Larger wings = more drag = less speed = less wing loading = more agility = more weight = worse climb rate

here are my analogies so you can understand




_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 38
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:08:24 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Let us compare flight to sports,
a fighter is performing 3 sports at the same time

rock climbing, swimming, and balancing on one leg - all at the same time

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 39
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:10:20 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Rock climbing = you need strong muscle on your arms and a small body weight






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 40
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:12:42 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
the best rock-climber is the F8F beacat. Power-to-weight ratio is what matters. A big radial engine and small airframe.
Rate of climb was 5,000+ feet per minute, a world record. Climb rate is about defeating gravity in the y axis.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 2/23/2012 5:17:56 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 41
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:14:26 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
The next sport is swimming. A good swimmer has a streamlined body to move well through the water.







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 42
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:16:07 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
A good swimmer is the heinkell 100. A perfectly streamlined body with no radiator or tailwheel to cause drag.
Speed is about defeating drag in the z axis




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 2/23/2012 5:18:16 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 43
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:22:24 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Stability. If you extend your arms, you can keep your balance. If your arms are short, you cannot balance well.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 44
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:25:09 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Nieuport 17 can balance well, but it doesn't have muscle to climb rocks (300 feet per minute? )
nor is it streamlined to swim properly. It can dance around in circles however.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 45
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 5:29:34 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
So.. if you can do one, it is difficult to do the other..

the ideal athlete has long arms, but a streamlined body and enough muscle as well
add one, and you lose the other two.. but there is a winner with all 3 in good amounts








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Commander Stormwolf -- 2/23/2012 5:30:48 PM >


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 46
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 6:15:03 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

quote:

the one with heavier loading is always slower, climbs worse, stalls earlier, has slower rate of turn and wider radius of turn.


Those who are inexperienced in this field will say these things. Completely incorrect.

Larger wings = more drag = less speed = less wing loading = more agility = more weight = worse climb rate

here are my analogies so you can understand




I did not ask for any "analogies" but valid sources to support your claims. Welcome to my ignore list!

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 47
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 6:28:25 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25307
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

I did not ask for any "analogies" but valid sources to support your claims. Welcome to my ignore list!



smart move.

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 48
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/23/2012 11:19:20 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
Not sure what you mean by this. Planes with high wing loading have high speed (P-47 *425mph at 263 kg/m2 ). Planes with low wing loading have low speed (Polikarpov I-152 220 mph at 65kg/m2).


You hilarios. What about plane which have more speed then P-47 and much lesser wing load? How it can be fitted in your world?

< Message edited by btbw -- 2/24/2012 1:56:32 AM >

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 49
RE: Using the B7A2 Grace - 2/24/2012 12:45:21 AM   
nate25


Posts: 1379
Joined: 9/20/2011
From: Fishers Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

quote:

a) it was problem to find and track american CVGs, problem a bit solved with C6N, what wrong with japs?


No. Problem japan had was they could not SINK any CVs after 1942. Total number of capital ships sunk by japan 1943-1945 = zero

b)
quote:

More wing load and you cut your lowest speed.


Not sure what you mean by this. Planes with high wing loading have high speed (P-47 *425mph at 263 kg/m2 ). Planes with low wing loading have low speed (Polikarpov I-152 220 mph at 65kg/m2).


3)
quote:

why we need C6N-1B? WITPAE have limitation for used carrier-based planes? and what real flight characteristics for C6N-1b?


As stated. Not for a historical scenario one. Using the Saiun is about what should have been done Historically, not in the game.




4)
quote:

C6N better design for fast and long-range recon. It all. Airspeed was result of low weight conception. You can transform SR-72 in TB it have enormous air speed and can left behind any fighter.


A plane can easily be re-configured as flight characteristics are the sum of its parts. Saiun has a range of 14 at the start. Replace
with self-sealing tanks and you cut the range by 30%. That's still okay (range about 10). Some minor strengthening of the hull (as you suggest)
adds some weight, so reduce the fuel even further. Now you have range 8 with an armor rating of 1. Speed 379mph.

Remember ... many planes filled many roles .. Blenheim converted to a fighter, Mosquito for Recon + night fighter, even Ju 88 for a fighter.
Changing the Saiun into a torpedo plane would be a lot easier than turning it into a fighter (as they did historically),
and japan was desperate for a weapon system to be able to sink allied capital ships (B6N Tenzan was not good enough, look at the Marianas battle)




You hilarios. What about plane which have more speed then P-47 and much lesser wing load? How it can be fitted in your world?


Can we just put these two in a box so they can only post to one another?

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Using the B7A2 Grace Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.096